Here is a list of all the postings John Emms 1 has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Cub. Which Cub?|
Yes, and the DB kits. I built the Moth 40 that is now their electric demo - way over 25 years ago!
I am STILL building my GP Electricub, the kit for which certainly suffered as a result of a start to laser cutting parts - take that as it having been hard work...
I have flown a couple of Flair Cubs, which with their semi-symmetrical wing, handle less than smooth air well. The Flair Cubs I flew had OS FP and LA 40s, and that was a perfect package, so pretty much any 4S LiPo electric system using up to 12" props will be fine. I am on the lookout for a Flair Cub with the lighter built up wing for exactly this.
There are some new Chinese built up Cub kits that are specifically electric, and look quite nice - on the web.....
I have built a few Sig kits, and they are all first class. The older Sig Cubs, being lightweight designs from the 70s and 80s, are perfect for electric conversion.
|Thread: Puffin Models Models Wanted|
I will say thank you for both Sandra and myself - I just know that Sandra REALLY enjoyed the wine .
I massively appreciate you taking the time to write your offer, but I am snowed under with models right now, and following the local council elections, it would appear that I have a new "hobby"!
|Thread: Military J3 Cubs|
I have a ready to cover GP Electricub 2. I have taken out the Cub Yellow film, and was about to start. But for a variety of reasons, I would like to finish it as a military Cub, and for a number of personal reasons, ideally a US military Cub.
I could convert it to a L4, but I would prefer to leave it as a J3.
There are the camouflage airship squadron finishes, but I would prefer to avoid the mess of spraying (picky, I know!).
What about the trainer schemes?
Were there any all yellow military trainers?
What about the standard trainer scheme of yellow wings and blue fuz - was the J3 too late into service for that?
Were there really any with base coat silver wings and yellow fus?
BTW I have cub yellow, silver, and mid blue film here. And I have a technique for making film US Army Air Force markings.
All comments and advice VERY welcome!
|Thread: Flying the Tiger Moth|
For my 60th birthday, I was bought an "Experience Day", a flight in a Tiger Moth.
To cut an extremely long story short, Sandra and I finally arrived at Eaglescott Airfield **LINK** on Friday evening. I expected this to be very much an air cadet type experience, but how wrong I was - this was a full experience evening, for only Sandra and I!
We arrived to find the Tiger safely behind the hangar doors, waiting for the wind to die down. We were waved down to the hangar by Barry Pearson, and the reason was for Sandra (now 62), and I to roll the aircraft out of the hangar. Time and space was allowed to take the obligatory photos and video, and then it was time for me to be shown how to enter the front cockpit safely, have the pre-flight briefing (including the operation of the controls), and check coms. It is rude of me not to remember the name of the lady who is hugely privileged to be the owner of this Moth, but she and Barry worked together to start the engine, while I held the stick firmly back against the pressure of the spring that provides the elevator trim. The engine started on the third "flick". I was aware that we would need to wait for engine warm up, but very soon, we were taxiing over the iron age mound, and out to the runway.
The take off appeared to be without drama. Barry said we would simply accelerate, and then elevate, and that was exactly what happened. After a short climb to height, Barry took me through some exercises using elevator and aileron, and I was then flying for the rest of a guided sight seeing trip over beautiful countryside. Those who know me are very aware that popular culture passed me well by, so I did not know of the personalities mentioned (other than Vera Lynn who signed the aircraft), and the main point was, I enjoyed flying the aircraft.
I have flown Chipmunk, Kirby Cadet glider, Sedberg glider and Blanic (the gliders solo). I found the Blanic extremely heavy on the controls, and frankly, hard work. The Moth is in complete contrast, extremely light on the controls, responsive, and extremely stable, staying just in the attitude it was left (either straight and level, or in a turn). The way to fly the Moth appears to be just like I would fly a Super 60 type model, with very light touches of control to guide it to the attitude required. I did some turning exercises, and I am not sure if that was to position for the sight seeing, or break up the straight and level. I flew the Moth through the circuit (and a little turbulence as we got lower) after Barry adjusted the throttle. After landing, it was time to unbuckle and climb out (leaning back to avoid the centre section), and help put the aircraft away.
It is fantastic that people keep these old aeroplanes flying, and I very much appreciate this Moth being made available for others to enjoy. This was an incredible experience that I will never forget.
Lessons learnt? For those who can afford it, it is well worth the cost and effort, and an incredible evening. I would book directly with the venue, and cut out the experience company. For those wanting the sight seeing experience, I am told it is well worth having the 40 minutes to fly along the coast, but the 30 minutes of flying the aircraft out to the coast and back was what I really appreciated. For those who can't pull the aircraft out, don't worry, there are three people there for Moth flights. Barry absolutely makes this a special evening, and if I ever want to do a PPL, I want Barry to be my instructor.
I did ask Sandra if she would like to own half a Tiger Moth, but unfortunately she has ideas of owning a Mustang in the sun (I am told that I can borrow it). Perhaps Sandra has a point, the Mustang doesn't need a large hangar to store it, two people to start it, or three people to pull it out before the engine can be started.
|Thread: Take off into wind ?|
Perhaps I should expand on my earlier post.
My usual method for cross wind landing is to set the model up so that the nose is pointing into wind, with the result that the track of the model in relation to the ground is along the runway. When about to touch down, the model is "kicked" with a "boot full" of rudder, to be pointing along the runway just before the wheels touch. I am sure that is how I was taught when gliding in the '70s. I have one model that must approach as slow as possible, touch down at the threshold, and can take most of the length of the runway to slow down.
One day I was flying circuits using my normal method, and also having some success in keeping the wings level, and adjusting the track using rudder, but commented to an airline pilot stood next to me that I preferred my normal method of flying the model into wind so the resultant track is down the runway. The comment I got back was "Yes, I prefer that method with full size too."
There has to be some understanding that rudder/elevator models MUST take off into wind, because the cross wind, or yaw component is what results in the roll for turn - but these models tend to be small, light, and quickly out of the way. I also have a light aileron model (TopModel Antic) that is a danger to itself if there is an attempt to take off cross wind - but, pointing into wind, it is safely off the ground within a couple of metres, and turning into circuit shortly after. BUT I wait until the runway is quiet, I ask if others are happy for me to take off across the narrow runway, and I am mindful of others. I spend no less time in the pilot's box than anyone taking off along the runway.
Have a great day!
Some will say that I am privileged to be a member of a club with a tarmac runway, but the runway is model sized, and yes, people do take off and land crosswind without drama.
The real issue comes when flying rudder/elevator models, or those with a little more dihedral than the norm, and cross wind results in roll - those models do need to take off and land into wind to be safe. That needs consideration from the pilot of that model, and perhaps understanding from others.
|Thread: MVVS 90 PORTS|
I am not an expert on MVVS history, but I have seen the museum at the factory, and I know that, with notable exceptions, most parts are common throughout the recent glow engine history - 30 years or more.
Bob's is most certainly an MVVS.
The needle valve on TartanMac's is not MVVS. I have never seen the dull grey crankcase of TartanMac's on any MVVS, and, so far as I am aware, the current MVVS logo has been used on all glow and diesels pretty much for ever. I wonder about the "M" logo on TartanMac's - could that be Modella?
I was going to say that there was a slight mod to the MVVS glow carbs, maybe a little short of 20 years ago to improve throttling. But then I saw the carb - that is of a type that I don't recognise.
The answer, as always, is a short e-mail to MVVS.
|Thread: Legislation Proposal at last|
I hoped that Martin may come back and answer that one. I understand that the immediate benefit was that funding became available for those participating in International competition, but I understand that stopped a number of years ago (a friend was asked to compete in a world chaps recently, and the total costs of doing so came to over £6000). I know that the sport status has led to local authorities providing suitable facilities if existing facilities are lost. I guess that ultimately being a recognised sport, is a recognition of the value of the sport to society in general.
Further thoughts on the commercial value of Model Flying:
Do a search on military drone, and you will find far more manufacturers of model sized fixed wing drones than of MR drones, and thinking of the civil applications, any task that requires a loitering capability, or covering long distances is far more effectively done by fixed wing than by MR. So, any mapping or surveillance is far more effectively done with fixed wing. I supplied a number of airframes and power systems to provide a stable platform for filming wildlife over extended periods. The UAV climbing under electric power with the prop blades rotating as slowly as possible, and then filming during the glide.
As an electric flight specialist dealer, a typical commercial call would be about how to power a given size and weight of fixed wing drone, how to improve duration, and providing components for both prototype and production drones. It is also no secret that an engine manufacturer that I used to be a dealer for is doing considerable development and production of engines specifically for the fixed wing drone market. A call I remember well was late on a Friday when a drone manufacturer needed propeller blades for trials that were booked to start on the Monday morning - I was the only person with the required blades, and the manufacturer started the trials with the propeller blades they needed. The market for parts for prototype and limited production run specialist drones is so limited that it would not be possible to exist even as a hobby dealer for these parts. The UK drone manufacturers RELY on UK model flyers to keep model dealers in existence, so that the drone manufacturers have a ready supply of parts at low cost, but the drone manufacturers are of little to no benefit to the model flying dealers. Without the supply and support base for small drone development and manufacture, you don't build up large scale drone development and manufacture.
Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 07/12/2017 08:33:47
A massive thank you to those in the know who have added relevant links, and patiently added to knowledge.
I have sympathy with Matty's comments, and the fact we fly away from people does not help our visibility. BUT I feel we have a strong argument for pretty much business as usual, partly because of the wording about us by EASA, and partly because core skills and knowledge for the UAV industry comes from skills and knowledge gained ENTIRELY through model flying! Airframes for commercial UAVs are designed and built by model flyers. Name a UK UAV manufacturer and, at some point, they have probably phoned me for advice about electric power for UAVs, including BaE Systems.
I remember the massive impact that Martin's work had in getting our sport recognised, and Martin's definition was clearly important in this. In addition to that, the modern definition of sport is about the link between the cognitive and physical, and ALL aspects of our sport have that. There is conclusive medical evidence that developing an excess of cognitive ability (more than would be required simply to live a normal life), physical exercise, and social interaction, all help to put off the onset of dementia. Sandra and I have met a massive number of model flyers over the years, Sandra is now a specialist in dementia care, and we do not know of one single model flyer who has developed the onset of dementia.
The RAF, since the time of National Service, has encouraged model flying as a sport to build "air mindedness", and in later years Flight Safety, especially in those trades not directly associated with aircraft operations. Cross country slope soaring involved every bit of physical activity that military fitness tests involved, but with the added demands of being aware of the height, speed, and position of the model in relation to the next available lift.
Other benefits? Many of our great aircraft designers, notably Harry Hawker, have been model flyers, and I know young high flying engineers at Airbus who were enthused by aviation through being introduced to model flying, and continue to enthusiastic model flyers. In my own experience, I came very close to being one of the 50 and 60 plus long term unemployed, but I maintained a wide range of engineering skills through model flying, and I am now one of the people that the Government say are much needed, passing on skills and knowledge in Engineering education.
Please excuse me for being confused, there is a sea of documents out there, so this is what I had found **LINK** but I start to get the idea that ONLY NPA 2017-05 is what we should be looking at **LINK**
So, looking at NPA 2017-05 (A) **LINK**
If NPA 2017-05 (A) 18.104.22.168 (Model aircraft) is accepted, it is absolutely business as usual at club sites
For flying at other than club sites Category A1 sub category C1 up to 900g with a height limit of 120m (400ft in UK), and only registration for the operator (with on-line training and on-line test) is the perfect situation for myself, and allows flexibility for (almost) all smaller models that I would want to fly in the park and on the common. Under technical requirements (CE Marking) hobbyist activities may develop in Subcategory A1, as training requirements are maintained at a low level but compensated by the performance limitations of UAS Class C1
I also agree that we want Category A3 Privately built up to 25kg, with no need for additional electronics for flying larger models away from the club site in remote areas, and slope soaring is the classic example of this. The cost of A3 over A1 (with the provision for Privately built) is the requirement for both operator AND UAV registration
I would like to see how relations are with the BMFA, LMA etc, so if relations are positive, and we can get provision under Open Class A3.1 and 3.2, that would make it pretty much business as usual, and people sending in e-mail in support of that would be hugely positive.
If things are strained, then I see that a legitimate and persistent e-mail campaign (telling of the positives of our hobby) aimed at Baroness Sugg's in box could have a dramatic effect.
I must say that I am absolutely shocked by the rapid developments in quadcopters, so, watch out for a hybrid drone coming near you soon...
You are an absolute star Steve, and I am interested to see what YOU, and others, think can be achieved under Open Class A3.
First on 3.1. This gives us a more than adequate height at 150m with what I see as a sensible limit of 500g for the type of model that I occasionally fly on the local common, and would be suitable for medium size to larger parks. I guess the idea of "designed to be operated by children less than 14 years" suggests simpler models like a typical "park flyer".
3.2 is far more interesting, as ALL of the criteria listed in 3.2 are, or could be considered to be, in place with the BMFA and LMA etc under the existing arrangements with the CAA.
I was concerned initially by the term "low energy aircraft" in 3.1, but in 3.3 there are references to UAVs of over 150kg, along with UAVs of Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 size.
The note at the bottom is extremely helpful as it say that help and advice could be sought from Model Flying Federations, clubs and associations throughout Europe. **LINK**
It strikes me that Open Category A3.1 and A3.2 could be designed for the DfT to have some common sense about long established model flying. It appears that each model flyer is typically spending two to three times the cost of a DJI Phantom every year, so in commercial consideration terms, we are punching well above our numbers compared to hobby quadcopter owners.
I phoned the BMFA this morning, but just missed speaking with "Linda" for more information about where the BMFA stand with this. I am teaching soon, but if someone else could make that call and feed back, that would be great.
Not buying the Jeti DS16 just yet, but funds are ringfenced
This is all starting to look quite red, and smelling of fish. Now we have the EASA firing real heads at solid plates, and then saying that a 1,3kg quadcopter would bounce off any way. Pretty much all of the cases of UAV use quoted by the EASA are for commercial purposes which I thought was already covered, and the only way quadcopters are going to be winging their way around the country making deliveries on a commercial basis is if they have supercapacitors for rapid charging, and superconductor motors so that small motors do not burn out from constant use at high currents, and even then, Amazon would have to pay for additional capacity while they wait for the weather to be suitable for deliveries. Yes, I do get the point that we can have superconductor motors if the delivery drones carry round a bottle on liquid nitrogen! BTW, not a rant, just my version of reality lol.
Anecdotal evidence is that quadcopter sales are falling, not least because "they are bringing in legislation to make it not worthwhile". I have spent close to £2000 on model goods over the last 4 months, including a 1/4 scale ARTF, and an engine that is made in UK only 2 days before this latest press release, but the Jeti DS16 will not be under the Christmas tree. So that is money not spent entirely in the EU, and close to £300 not going straight into the UK Treasury as VAT. Oh, and a complete ban on model spending until this is sorted out. The legislation IS having a commercial effect - before it even exists!
Taking Erfolg's point, it would be good to know the arguments being made by the BMFA (and others), but in any case, I will be buying post cards and stamps this week, and start writing. I agree, we need a campaign to get everyone writing, e-mail or otherwise.
I will be sure to familiarize myself with my up to 900g models
I responded to two consultations, and received an e-mail from EASA answering specific points of mine, but this thread is showing me that there is a mass of published documents and data that I was not aware of. I am thinking that a thread that only contains links to the relevant on-line documents would be really useful.
Having read more of the documents that call for specific electronic means of height limiting, geofencing, etc, I feel that there is a very strong case for grandfathers rights over historic model aircraft, and that could be existing models, existing designs, or simply "existing equipment". There are a huge number of cases where grandfather rights exist in the area of transport - including historic vehicles no longer requiring an annual roadworthiness test.
I was told that CAA officials had been really pushed by the Lords for action to restrict Drones, and the great thing about having a Baroness as the minister responsible for this is that the same person is also the expert on this topic in the Lords - who's sole reason for being is scrutinising potential legislation that is passed to them from Government!
I see this as hugely sensitive, and whilst there is clearly benefit in bombarding ministers and the Lords with concerns, I would not want to do so without knowing the line that the BMFA is taking. There are a mass of issues, and I would like the messages to have some degree of commonality.
I would not want to discourage e-mailing, but a friend who does a lot of lobbying considers e-mail to be as tangible as Bitcoin, and uses postcards for her lobbying. The point, of course, being that the message on the postcard will be read by everyone in the department who handles it.
BTW, conversation of last night:
Sandra: What are you thinking about?
Me: New legislation about UAVs from the Government.
Sandra: Lol, government always over-reacts about everything! But that doesn't affect you, you have no interest in quadcopters.
Me: The definition of a UAV is....
Sandra: Don't even THINK of buying any more until this is sorted out.
Clearly we don't have to wait to see what is proposed, because what is proposed right now is right here **LINK**
Seeing Erfolg's thoughts, and thinking about this further: I have passed 3 tests with two different bodies that are recognised by the CAA, and I have two different registration numbers. I see little to be gained by having further tests and further registration numbers. I think that as the BMFA already has both schemes and registration in place, we should be looking at using that, and if necessary, build on that.
Club officials currently have to check current BMFA membership of members in different clubs, and check insurance details for clubs that are not affiliated, and I do agree that a "compliance officer" will be required in each club, if additional testing and registration is legally required.
On the weight limit, I would like to see this be higher than 250g. At 500g it would remove many smaller and simple models, along with many "park flyers", and at 750g all the park flyers would be removed. I am considering that the market leading drone, DJI Phantom has a mass of greater than 1,3kg.
On the 400ft height limit, I paced this out yesterday, and I could clearly see the white rim on a no entry sign, and clearly see "give way" on another road sign. I see that argument that flyer of large models would be experienced, and capable of flying safely within a 400ft limit, but I would want to do handling checks on a new model above this height, and I would want to start flight training with a new model pilot above this height, to be "three mistakes high". The 400ft limit is, of course, below the 150m length of an F5J towline, and that is not high. Talking to a colleague with PPL, he would be flying in circuit around 800ft, and as we do not fly near airfields, I would have thought that a limit of 500 or 600ft would be more realistic, if there has to be a limit at all.
I did forget that the registration fee will also have to pay for the special "drone readers" that will need to be developed, and carried routinely by the Police (in addition to all the other kit that they have to carry).
I suspect that most Police officers would be able to read a paper label without the need for a special reader.
There has been suggestion that discussion here is not helpful, but submission to "the authorities" is. I feel that this discussion is actually long overdue. I also suspect that there are some on here involved in "official discussion", in which case it would be helpful if they identify themselves as such. In any case this, those who are involved in official discussions can be made aware of the thoughts here.
As I see the situation:
Someone in China developed a cheap helicopter type toy, and a huge number of these were sold worldwide. A very small number of this type of UAVs are, and will be used, for commercial applications. There was a real concern that some of the camera equipped UAVs will be used to invaded privacy, and some of these UAVs have been used near airports. A scheme is now in place for qualifying commercial operators of UAVs.
The EASA who were previously only concerned with full size aviation were tasked with looking at potential legislation to cover UAVs, included all UAVs in their "model legislation", and put a great emphasis on electronics in all UAVs, including those that use no electronics at the moment. I responded to the EASA consultation saying that it would be a huge burden to adapt and adjust all of my models to be a able to fly autonomously as required by the "model legislation", and not actually as safe as me maintaining full control of my model at all times, even if the equipment needed to do this was available. The French said that transponders would need to be no more than 9g and 9 Euro, which was taken forward.
We are now in the face of impending legislation concerning geofencing for model aeroplanes (where the model flys away autonomously, or perhaps the model is intended to "hold it's present position" ie crash), and transponders for models, where the transponders do not exist.
The label in all small UAVs would be a simple answer to identifying a user after an "incident", but I suspect we could end up with new quango that has a £300k plus CEO to register all small UAVs, or at least, their operators. I suspect that most won't bother, or feel that they cannot afford, to register.
The transponders will require research that universities will be very happy to do, and the Government will be very happy to fund, but only the end user can pay, so the fee for registration will need to reflect the very expensive development costs for the technology that the Government want to exist.
On the geofencing. I seriously do not have the will to programme each of the controls for each of my models, for the model to fly autonomously to given way points should it receive some signal to do so. Apart from this being an entirely different hobby, I was advising a Bristol University lecturer only 15 years ago, as to how he might go about achieving this.
And you thought the paper labels were a non starter...
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!